The influence of citizen participation on local government performance the case of vietnam ( luận án (theses)

國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系
博士論文

公民參與對地方政府績效之影響─以越南為例
The Influence of Citizen Participation on Local
Government Performance: the Case of Vietnam

指導教授：孫同文博士
研究生：鄭黃鴻惠
中華民國 108 年 7 月

i 
 


 
 

 
 

 


Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have supported and
guided me throughout my doctoral studies in Taiwan. During four years of studying at
the National Chi Nan University, I received many precious supports from my
supervisor, committee members, the faculty and staff at Department Public Policy and
Administration, classmates and friends.
First of all, I wish to place on records my heartfelt and sincere thanks to my

supervisor Prof. Sun, Milan Tung-Wen for the outstanding guidance to my dissertation.
Without his significant and valuable suggestions, comments and guidance, my
dissertation could not have been completed. He is the most tremendous mentor that I
have chance to meet in my life. He always encourage and stimulate me to learn and do
research more day by day. He is my idol that I would like to become in the future. Big
thanks once again go to him for his deep understanding and flexibility throughout my
pursuing professional goals.
I would like to express my special appreciation to my dissertation committee
chair, Prof. Chen Jin-Gui, and each of the committee members: Prof. Shih Mei-Chiang,
Prof. Lee Tsuey-Ping, and Prof. Lu Chun-Meng for giving excellent comments and
feedbacks that have great improved the quality of my dissertation. I am also very
appreciate of precious supports form Prof. Shih Mei-Chiang for offering us a seminar
room at the Tung Hai University. I am also deeply grateful to Prof. Chen Wen-Hsueh
for giving invaluable insights and suggestions throughout the process of my study.
I would also like to extend my special thanks to all of professors of the
Department of Public Policy and Administration at National Chi Nan University. Over
the past four years, I have learned a lot of knowledge and wisdom from all of you,
which will guide my professional career in the future. Additionally, from the bottom of
my heart, I am also deeply grateful to Wei-li sister and Man-tou for helping me a lot. I
will never forget your precious assistance and generosity.
I would like to covey my sincerest thanks and greatest gratitude to the
scholarship donors form the National Chi Nan University. I would like to express my
very special thanks to Prof. Wu Ruo-Yu for giving me a chance to pursue PhD Program

i
 


and financing my job as a Vietnamese language teacher throughout the years of my
studies at the National Chi Nan University.

I would also like to give thanks to Ms. Do Thi Thanh Huyen, a policy analyst on
Public Administration Reform and Anti-corruption at the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), Prof. Edmund J. Malesky, Duke University (UNDP international
consultant on governance measurement) for providing lots of precious information to
my dissertation.
Especially, I highly appreciated Prof. Tran Thi Thu Luong (University of Social
Sciences and Humanities, VNU-HCM, Vietnam) Prof. Nguyen Chi Hai (University of
Economic and Law, VNU-HCM, Vietnam), M.S. Tran Dai Nguyen (University of
Technology, VNU-HCM, Vietnam) for their support, encouragement and trust over
years.
Thanks also to all of my dear friends and classmates in Taiwan and Vietnam
who have supported me with their confidence and encouragement throughout my study
in Taiwan. Thank for your valuable time, co-operation, and generosity which set this
work possible as it is till the end.
I would like to thank my family, especially in my parents for their love, support
and understanding throughout the years I have been pursuing my education and career. I
love you so much, my dear dad and mom. You always stand by me even I face to the
most difficulties in my life. I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my beloved
daughter, Tran Hoang Thao Linh, who gave up her childhood with mother and allow her
mother to pursue the goals. I could not finish my study without these great supports and
love from my family.
Finally, I am deeply thankful to all person who contributed to my doctorate
program’s completion. Thank you very much again from the bottom of my heart. I will
always love all you.

ii
 


論文名稱：公民參與對地方政府績效之影響─以越南為例

校院系：國立暨南國際大學人文學院公共行政與政策學系
畢業時間: 中華民國 108 年 7 月

頁數：189
學位別：博士

研究生：鄭黃鴻惠

指導教授：孫同文博士

摘要
本研究旨在以更好地方式來理解公民參與對越南地方政府績效的影響。而
本研究概述了當地公民參與的演變和越南地方政府的表現。此外，亦發現了提高
公民參與和越南地方政府績效至關重要的關係。最後，本研究考察了公民參與是
否會影響越南地方政府的績效。 本研究是首次對於越南採用面板數據分析與
REMs 進行研究，探討公民參與對省級政府績效的影響，包括經濟，制度，政治
和行政四個方面。我們針對 2012 年至 2017 年的所有省市，覆蓋 58 個省和 5 個市
（河內，胡志明市，海防，峴港和芹苴）。本研究使用來自四個數據來源的二手
數據，包括 2012 年越南 63 個省份的公共行政績效指數（PAPI），省競爭力指數
（PCI），公共行政改革指數（PARI）和一般統計辦公室到 2017 年。
這項研究有一些主要結論，包括： （1）地方一級的公民參與對體制，行
政和政治表現產生了複雜的影響；並且對經濟表現沒有顯著影響。此外，公民參
與以及制度和政治表現呈正相關，但與個別省的行政表現呈現負相關。 （2）政
府支出/人均效率，大多數金人和少數民族之間的差距，以及南北之間的地區差
異，所有這些因素都會影響公民參與地方的水平和當地政府在越南的表現。

關鍵詞：公民參與，地方政府績效，越南，民主治理

iii
 

Title of Thesis: The Influence of Citizen Participation on Local Government
Performance: the Case of Vietnam
Name of Institute: Department of Public Policy and Administration, College of
Humanities, National Chi Nan University

Pages: 189

Graduation Time: 07/2019

Degree: Doctor

Student Name: Trinh Hoang Hong Hue

Advisor Name: Dr. Milan Tung-Wen Sun

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify and develop a better understanding of the
influence of citizen participation on local government performance in Vietnam in terms
of democratic governance. It provides an overview of the evolution of citizen
participation at the local level and performance of local governments in Vietnam.
Additionally, this study also finds out attributes that are crucial for enhancing citizen
participation and the performance of local governments in Vietnam. Finally, this study
examines whether citizen participation affects performance of the local governments in
Vietnam or not.
This study is the first research in Vietnam that employs panel data analysis with
REMs to explore the effect of citizen participation on performance of government at the
provincial level with four different aspects including economic, institutional, political
and administrative. We target all provinces and municipalities from 2012 to 2017,

covering 58 provinces and 5 municipalities (Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, Da
Nang and Can Tho). This study uses the secondary data from four data sources,
including The Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI), the Provincial
Competitiveness Index (PCI), the Public Administration Reform Index (PARI), and the
General Statistics Office of 63 provinces of Vietnam from 2012 to 2017.
This study has some major conclusions, including: (1) citizen participation at the
local level has mixed effects on institutional, administrative and political performances;
and has no significant effect on economic performance. In particular, citizen
participation is positively associated with institutional and political performances, but is
negatively associated with individual province’s administrative performance; (2) The
efficiency of government spending/per capita, the disparities between the majority of
Kinh people and ethnic minorities, and the regional differences between the North and
iv
 


the South, all of these factors influence the level of citizen participation at the local level
and local government performance in Vietnam.
Key words: citizen participation, local government performance, Vietnam, democratic
governance

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

v
 


Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... i
摘要 ................................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Background of the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ........................................................................................................ 7
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Study .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 Literature Review ....................................................................................... 9
Democratic Governance ............................................................................................ 9
Citizen Participation and Government Performance through Democratic Governance
................................................................................................................................... 11
The Influence of Citizen Participation on Government Performance ....................... 27
Chapter 3 The Case of Vietnam .................................................................................. 35
Local Government in Vietnam .................................................................................. 35
Democratic Governance in Vietnam.......................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 Research Design and Methods .................................................................. 67
Research Framework ................................................................................................. 67

Data Procedure and Sources ...................................................................................... 70
Measurements ............................................................................................................ 70
Variables .................................................................................................................... 96
Hypothesis Development ........................................................................................... 98
Statistical Methods ...................................................................................................100
Equation ...................................................................................................................101
Chapter 5 Results and Discussion .............................................................................103
Descriptive Statistics................................................................................................103
Panel Data Analysis .................................................................................................107

vi
 


Results ......................................................................................................................109
Discussion ................................................................................................................113
Chapter 6 Conclusion .................................................................................................119
Summary of Research Findings ...............................................................................119
Theoretical Implications and Practical Applications ...............................................123
Limitations ...............................................................................................................126
References ...................................................................................................................128
Appendixes ..................................................................................................................158
Appendix A  Consolidated List of Legal Normative Documents on Grass-Roots
Democracy ................................................................................................................158
Appendix B  Some main indexes using in PA in Vietnam now ...............................160
Appendix C  Provincial Policy Responses to PAPI from 2012 to 2018 ...................168
Appendix D  Provincial Policy Responses to PCI from 2014 to 2018 .....................175
Appendix E  Provincial Policy Responses from 2014 to 2018 to improve PARI ....184
Appendix F  Correlation Matrix among variables ....................................................189
 

vii
 


List of Tables
Table 3.1

The changes in number of the three – tier model of the local government

system in Vietnam .......................................................................................................... 43
Table 3.2

Scio- Political Profile of East Asia countries .............................................. 47

Table 3.3

Corruption perceptions index of Vietnam ................................................... 49

Table 3.4

Changes in associational membership from 2011-2014 ............................... 52

Table 3.5

Characteristics of liberal democracy and socialist democracy .................... 53

Table 4.1

PAPI dimensions and indicators.................................................................. 71

Table 4.2. Sub-dimensions of citizen participation at the local level ........................... 73
Table 4.3

PCI dimensions and indicators .................................................................... 76

Table 4.4

PAR Index dimensions and indicators ........................................................ 88

Table 4.5 Sub-dimensions of political performance (from PAPI)............................... 91
Table 4.6 Variables definitions.................................................................................... 97
Table 5.1 Citizen Participation at Vietnam provinces from 2012 to 2017 ................103
Table 5.2

GRDP/ per capita from 2012 to 2017 ........................................................104

Table 5.3

PCI of provincial changes over 2012 -2017 ..............................................105

Table 5.4

Public Administrative Reform Index (PARI) from 2012 to 2017 .............106

Table 5.5

Political performance of provincial changes over 2012 -2017..................107

Table 5.6

Summary Statistic......................................................................................108

Table 5.7

The effect of social demographic backgrounds on citizen participation and

local government performance .....................................................................................110
Table 5.8 The effect of citizen participation and social demographic backgrounds on
local government performance .....................................................................................112
Table 5.9 The effect of citizen participation and social demographic backgrounds on
local government performance (lagged one year) ........................................................113

viii
 


List of Figures
Figure 3.1 The structure of government according to the 1946 Constitution.............. 35
Figure 3.2 The structure of government according to the 1959 Constitution.............. 36
Figure 3.3 The structure of government according to the 1980 Constitution.............. 38
Figure 3.4 The structure of Vietnam government according to the 1992 Constitution 39
Figure 3.5 The structure of local government according to the 1992 Constitution ..... 40
Figure 3.6

Map of Vietnam, including 63 provinces/municipalities ........................... 42

Figure 3.7

The framework of citizen participation at the local level in Vietnam........ 55

Figure 3.8

The overview of Vietnamese Democratic system...................................... 58

Figure 4.1

Research framework................................................................................... 69

Figure 4.2

PAPI’s collection, construction and calibration methodology................... 71

ix
 


Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Study
Governance is an innovative term to describe changes in the nature and role of
the state following the public sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s (Bevir, 2009). In
which, citizen participation and government performance are clear implications for the
theory and practice of democratic governance (Neshkova & Guo, 2012). These are two
reinventing government movements designed to improve governance capacity and
democracy (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Schachter, 1995; Pharr & Putnam, 2000).
Democratic governance and citizen participation not only contribute to political stability
but also build up a fairer and more equal society, in which power belongs to the people
(UNDP, 2006). Additionally, through democratic governance, governments become
more responsive to citizen’s needs and more effective in providing public services

(Rondinelli, 2007). In the context of Vietnam, democratic governance is truly necessary
to yield “a State of the people, by the people, and for the people” (cua dan, do dan, vi
dan) (UNDP, 2006).
Referring to Vietnam, before, many people think that it is a country of war, a
less developed country or one of the world’s poorest nations. However, with the high
economic growth rate of approximately 7% in recent years, it now is transforming to
one of the most dynamic emerging countries in East Asia region and has set its sights on
becoming a developed country by 20201. Although being a single party State, Vietnam
has implemented many measures to democratize the economic, political and social life
(Nghi, 2008) as well as to strengthen accountability of the governance system and
citizen participation in decision-making (UNDP, 2006).
Historically, Socialist Republic of Vietnam and its local government system was
founded in 1945 based on the ideologies of socialist democracy from the former Soviet
Union. After the Spring Victory in 1975, due to then imbalanced national budget,
Vietnam fell into severe economic crisis, resulting in hyperinflation of 775% in 1986
(Xiaobo, 1998), followed by scarcity of staples and consumer goods, impoverished
living conditions, industrial stagnation, and mounting foreign debts (Quan, 2014). To
                                                            
1

  on April 1st 2019 

1
 


overcome these difficulties, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) and the
Government of Vietnam (GoV) introduced the Doi moi (renovation) policy with
economic reforms in 1986. It mainly focuses on transforming Vietnam’s economy from
centrally planned economy to the market socialist-oriented one, which promoted opendoor policies towards international trade and investment, and recognized private

property rights (Vuving, 2013). Thanks to the process of the Doi moi (renovation),
Vietnam’s economy has changed impressively and people’s lives have been enriched. In
1985, GDP per capita was 231.452 US$ per year; and it reached to 575.463 US$ per in
19872. From a country that lack of food, clothing and accommodation, it become the
world’s third largest rice exporter in 1989 (around 1.2 million tons exported), after
China and the United States (Quan, 2014). Between 1990 and 2016, Vietnam’s GDP
grew by a giant 3,303 percent, the second-fastest growth rate in the world, only
surpassed by China (Barker & Üngör, 2018). Citizens have more opportunities to access
to information and education (Constitution, 1992). From that, they have been deeper
awareness of their civil rights. This is vital for the promotion of democracy. Economic
development has also demanded a more substantive democratic system with altruism
enhancement and self-expressed values. To fulfil these demands, step-by-step political
reforms were conducted through reforming the State’s administration, upholding citizen
participation in politics and the citizens’ right to mastery. In particular, the 1992
Constitution and Party Congress IX confirm that Vietnam is a State “of the People, for
the People and by the People” (cua dan, do dan, vi dan) in which “People know, People
discuss, People execute, and People monitor” (dan biet, dan ban, dan lam, dan kiem
tra). Besides, the 1992 constitution also recognizes the rights to freedom of opinions,
expression and association for all citizens. In this sense, citizen participation has
become a necessary need, and has been put in the priority of Vietnam government’s
policies (Lien, 2003).
Although the Doi moi (renovation) policy in 1986 truly reinforced democracy,
citizens’ right were still violated in some places. Some protests broke out in various
provinces in the 1990s. The most serious violence occurred in rural of Thai Binh
province in May 1997 and similar events expanded in the southern of Dong Nai
province in November 1997. These protests uncovered serious problems of local
                                                            
2

Retrieved on April 1st 2019

2
 


governance in Vietnam at that time, such as corruption of local officials, high taxes, and
land disputes. In other words, local governments do not have capacity to provide
adequate services and facilities that are equivalent to tax payments and compulsory
labor or financial contributions to infrastructure projects (Mattner, 2004).
Simultaneously, central government recognized the problems in local
governments as well as that they failed to control local administration, especially in
monitoring local officials and enforcing them to follow rules and regulations. To
improve the transparency and accountability of local administration and to ensure
formal ways for citizens to express their grievances and preferences in their economic,
social and political life, the Communist Party of Vietnam launched Decree 29 in 1998
concerning regulations on the exercise of democracy at grassroots level. This decree can
be seen as a response by central government to tackle weakness in local governance. It
is also the first official framework for citizen participation in the public administration
and decision-making process at the local level in Vietnam. However, the
implementation of the Decree 1998 on grass roots democracy has been unequal among
localities because of lacking capacity to accomplish the reform policy at the local level
(Sau & Thong, 2003). Additionally, “some rules were no longer appropriate and
ineffective”, according to Do Quang Trung, Minister of Home Affairs (Viet Nam News,
2006). Thus, it is amended and upgraded into an ordinance on grassroots’ democracy in
2007 (GRDO) by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly. This ordinance
aims at further strengthening the democratic rights and participation of citizens in local
governance. Following the Ordinance 2007, Vietnamese citizens are able to better
monitor the local government’s performance. Hence, local government authority must
adjust their own performance level to increase benefits and decrease negative
consequences. Simultaneously, local government must effectively ensure citizens’ rights

and their legitimate interests in practice. Besides, numerous legal instruments have also
been promulgated to reform elected bodies and electoral systems, to reform elements of
the ruling Communist Party, and to strengthen the role of mass organizations, such as to
amend the 1992 Constitution in 2014, the Anti-Corruption Law 2005, and a new Law
on Complaints and Petitions of Citizens 2011.
Following the success of economic transition of the 1986 Doi moi (Renovation)
associated with the rules of a market economy, the need for the comprehensive reforms

3
 


for all of aspects of state management were raised. In January 1995, the public
administrative reforms (PAR) were carried out at provincial levels. It mainly focuses on
restructuring government system, simplifying administrative procedures, and renovating
the civil servants through training (Funston, 2001:385; OECD, 2011). However, there
were still some challenges in the public administrative system like the red-tape,
corruption, and weak performance of local government system. Therefore, government
of Vietnam launched another ten-year Public Administration Reform (PAR) master plan
2001-2010 with the aim of building an effective, strong, modern, professional, and
transparent public administrative system. Nevertheless, after ten years of
implementation of the PAR master plan, the public administrative system still
encountered many weakness like before such as red-tape, corruption, lack of
accountability and transparency. In other words, nothing has been significantly changed
as the result of this master plan. On November 8, 2011, Vietnamese government
decided to launch the PAR period 2011-2020 to build up an effective, efficient,
transparent public administrative system in consistent with the rule of law principle and
democratic value (Chinh phu, 2011).
The Doi moi (Renovation) policy also requires institutional and organizational
reforms. Clearly, local governments are responsible to enhance the resident’s life, so

they ought to provide public services as well as response to the needs of citizens better
than the central government. It also should have the capacity to contribute to a more
democratic freedom and human society (Chandler, 2001). However, Vietnam has not
yet recognized the importance of local government in promoting the democratic value
and good governance. Promoting decentralization or reforming local government in
Vietnam has also carried out inadequately (Fritzen, 2006; Wit, 2007). Performance of
local government is rather weak (Mattner, 2004). As a result, some local citizen unrests
occurred in the late 1997s. From that, reforming local government is necessary for
successful decentralization. To orient to a democratic society and good governance,
Vietnamese local governments are making efforts to build up an effective, efficient,
transparent and accountable system.
Through the above economic, political, administration and institutional reforms,
it is presumably that citizen participation affects the performance of local government.
So far, however, in Vietnam there has been little discussion about the effect of citizen

4
 


participation on performance of local governments in terms of democratic governance.
Current studies mainly examine the role of citizen participation in the development
process in Vietnam and concentrate on how to increase citizen participation in local
governance (ACVN, 2008; Dang, Thai & Le, 2015; Giang, Nguyen, Tran, 2016;
Jackson, 2014; Dao, 2015; Nguyen, Le, Tran & Bryant, 2015; UNDP, 2015; Thai &
Garcia-Zamor, 2017; Su & Bui, 2017). For instances, some findings show that weak
local governance can decrease citizen participation because of “lack of clarity of legal
instruments, insufficient funding and overlapping roles and responsibilities among
government institutions and mass organizations remain obstacles to more active
engagement of citizens in their political institutions” (UNDP, 2006: iv). Other studies
contribute to the literature on the term “civil society” by analyzing citizen participation

in Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) since the Doi moi (Renovation) policy or the
emergence of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in Vietnam (Dalton, 2006;
Wischermann, 2010; UNDP, 2006). They found out some differences between citizen
participation in Vietnam and those in Western countries. Some researchers also
investigate differences of citizen participation between large and small cities, between
the poor and non-poor people; and the gap between urban and rural governance in
Vietnam (Nguyen, 2015; Jairo, Nguyen, Tran & Phung, 2015). Extensively, citizen
participation in large cities is weaker than that in the small cities; and citizens belong to
“unofficial poor” groups participate less than non-poor people. Several other studies
indicate the effects of citizen participation and the importance of decentralization on
public services delivery in the context of Vietnam (Wescott, 2003; Thanh, Zouikri,
Deffains, 2012; Ramesh, 2013; Malesky, Cuong & Anh, 2014; Thi, 2016; Anh, 2016;
Vu, 2016). Among these, Wescott (2003) points out decentralization and administrative
reform in Vietnam increase citizen participation and accountability, and reduce poverty
and regional disparities. Malesky et.al (2014) explore that decentralization significantly
improved public service delivery in some important areas such as transportation,
healthcare, and communications. In addition, Vietnam has been achieving a number of
positive results in fiscal decentralization and improving the efficiency of using national
financial resources (Thi, 2016; Anh, 2016)
Meanwhile, far too little attention has been paid to local government
performance. These studies are merely qualitative with conventional approach to

5
 


describe the status-quo of public administrative reform process (UNDP, 2009; Tham,
2009; Nguyen, 2016). Numerous studies have recommended Vietnamese policy makers
to modernize the public administration reform process. They have explained that the
institutional context significantly influences business strategy and economic

performance, corruption, as well as the public administration reform performance with
GDP per capita (Malesky & Taussig, 2009; Thai & Le, 2012; Bai et al., 2013; Phan,
2013; Schmitz, Dau, Pham, & McCulloch, 2012; Quang, 2016; Pan & Ngo, 2016; Le, &
Nguyen, 2017; Vu, 2018). Thai and Le (2012) found that there were causality linkages
between public administration reform, provincial competitiveness and the GDP welfare
per capita in Vietnam. They suggested that legal institutions were positively influential
to the GDP outcome for Vietnamese citizens, while public administration reform
services and public services delivery exert positive impacts on GDP per capita. Bai et
al. (2013) asserted that as poor countries grow, corruption could subside "on its own,''
and this is one type of positive feedback between economic growth and good
institutions. Participatory governance is also getting much attention in Vietnam.
Through literature analysis, Thai et al. (2017) found that in Vietnam case, citizen
participation would shed lights on democratic governance through transparency and
accountability of local governments. Thang (2017) has a valuable contribution to the
debate about linkage between corruption and efficiency of service provision in
developing countries. He recognizes that in Vietnam, corruption significantly decreases
the quality of public service, and that improving local governance helps to reduce
corruption.
Clearly, all the previously mentioned studies have less discussion about the
influence of citizen participation on the performance of local governments in Vietnam
in terms of democratic governance. Hence, there is a need to shed some lights on the
causal relationship between citizen participation and the performance of local
governments with a quantitative method. This study is conducted to fill this gap, and
contribute literature to clarify what is necessary to support democratic society and good
governance in the future of Vietnam.

6
 

Purpose of Study
This study aims to identify and develop a better understanding of the influence
of citizen participation on local government performance in Vietnam. The following
research objective are formulated:


To provide an overview of the evolution of citizen participation at the
local level and performance of local governments in Vietnam;



To find out attributes that are crucial for enhancing citizen participation
and the performance of local governments in Vietnam;



To examine whether citizen participation affects performance of the local
governments in Vietnam or not.

Research Questions
The study is designed to answer the main questions: Does citizen participation
affect performance of local governments in Vietnam?
Some following sub-research questions will specifically support for this study:
i.

What are the status of citizen participation at the local level and
performance of local government in Vietnam, and what have been the
major changes of them over time?

ii.

What attributes are essential for citizen participation and local
government performance in Vietnam?

iii.

Does citizen participation influence performance of local governments in
Vietnam?

Significance of the Study
There are several studies exploring the causal relationship between government
agencies performance and citizen participation in various countries (Epstein, Coates &
Wray, 2006; Ho & Coaster, 2004; Swindell & Kelly, 2000; Yang & Holzer, 2006).
However, until now there has been limited understanding of the effect of citizen
participation on local government performance in the context of Vietnam, a socialist
republic and a developing country. In particular, if this analysis is able to identify the
influence of citizen participation on the Vietnamese government performance at the
local level, it can highly prove the theoretical validity of relationship between citizen
participation and performance of local governments. Additionally, this study initially

7
 


draws the comprehensive picture about citizen participation and performance of the
provincial governments in Vietnam.
The findings of this study will spur provincial officials, policymakers and
development specialists to develop action plans and an initial benchmark from which to
measure of progress, and empowers citizens’ and businesses’ voice to influence
government efforts on improving performance of local governments.

This study also contributes to the very limited of literature regarding citizen
participation and performance of the local governments in the context of Vietnam.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into six chapters, as follows:
Chapter 1 presents background of the study; purpose of study; research questions;
significance of the study; and organization of the study.
Chapter 2 covers theories of governance, democratic governance and the
literature review on citizen participation and performance of the local governments, as
well as the linkage between them.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of citizen participation and performance of local
governments in the context of Vietnam.
Chapter 4 describes the research design and its implementation, including
research design, research framework, sampling design, variables of the study, data
collection procedures, and data analysis methods.
Chapter 5 provides the descriptive statistic; and reports the analysis including
correlations, regression analysis; and provides discussion for findings.
Chapter 6 provides a summary of the research findings; conclusions drawn from
the findings; and theoretical implications and practical applications for improving
citizen participation and local government performance in Vietnam.

8
 


Chapter 2
Literature Review
Democratic Governance
Being as the fourth phase of public administration development, the term
governance has become an overarching conceptual framework in recent decades (Bevir,
2009). It has attracted attention not only of civil society organizations, local and

international nongovernmental organizations but also of policy makers and scholars in
developed as well as developing countries. Like many other political concepts,
“governance” is also vague and contested (Bevir, 2010), and it is widely used in the
development literature with a variety of meanings and interpretations (Barclay, 2006).
At the outset, governance is different from government although both of them have
shared goals-oriented objectives. By now, Stoker (1999) gives five major propositions
on governance as theory:
1. Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but
also beyond the Government.
2. Governance identifies the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for
tackling social and economic issues.
3. Governance identifies the power dependence involved in relationships
between institutions involved in collective action.
4. Governance emphasizes the importance of autonomous self-governing
networks of actors.
5. Governance recognizes the capacity to get things done without relying on the
power of the Government to command or use its authority.
However, one of the most representative and definitive definition of governance is
provided by the Commission on Global Governance (1995). It has four features: 1)
governance is not a set of rules or an activity, but a process; 2) the process of
governance is not based on control, but on coordination; 3) it involves both public and
private sectors; and 4) it is not a formal institution, but continuing interaction.
Generally, governance is a concept that is used to depict the relations between state and
civil society (Bevir, 2010).
Governance is directly connected to democracy because it aims to expand the
scope of citizen participation in political processes and public service delivery

9
 

(Kửseolu & Morỗửl, 2014). Democracy is often used in conjunction with governance
since it is as a credible system of governance that meets the needs of citizens. According
to Mudacumura (2014), governance is a paradigm that shift the role of citizens from
passive to active participants in democracy. Fukuyama (2013) points out that
governance is as a capacity of government to make and enforce rules and to deliver
services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not. However, he
further argues that good governance and democracy should be considered as mutually
supportive in the development community. Similarly, Keping (2018) asserts that good
governance is organically combined with democracy. Many institutions such as the
World Bank, United States, British and French governments, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the European Council and the Commonwealth Secretariat also
support and promote for this relationship because good governance has the ingredients,
features, the functional and institutional prerequisites as well as the building blocks of
democracy (Ndue, 2005). In particular, the essential elements of good governance are
accountability, participation, predictability, transparency, and responsiveness (Asian
Development Bank, 1995; Behn, 2001; UNDP, 2002; Brinkerhoff, 2006). Concerning
democracy and governance, Farazmand (2009) claims that ethics, accountability, and
transparency are important as they can prevent corruption and bad administration.
To pursue sustainable development strategies, both developed and developing
countries now are creating an environment that fosters effective democratic governance.
The term democratic governance is used to imply the involvement of market actors and
civil society actors in public decision-making (Fenger & Bekkers, 2007). It is originally
promoted by UNDP, which emphasizes on citizen participation in governmental
decision-making, accountability of governments, and mechanisms of reducing or
eliminating corruption. Hence, UNDP (2009) acknowledges participation, rule of law,
transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and
efficiency, accountability, and strategic vision as core characteristics of democratic
governance. Huque and Zafarullah (2006) conceive democratic governance as a

dynamic process encompassing vertical and horizontal linkages within public
organizations and their interactions with other stakeholders for sustainable development.
According to McCawley (1993), democratic governance is often equated to good

10
 


governance because both of them are the key elements of development, which
determines the success of development. However, UNDP uses the term “democratic
governance” rather than “good governance” because the former focuses on the process
of governance to ensure equality (of opportunity) and equity (social and economic
justice) for all citizens.
Democratic governance offers a genealogy of some problems confronting
democracy. Traditionally, democracy is associated with elected officials making
policies, then with public servants implementing policies. However, in the new
governance, polices are being implemented and even made by non-state actors.
Therefore, the theoretical origins of democratic governance are the concept of new
governance. It refers to an institutional shift at all levels of government from local to
global, from bureaucracy to markets and networks; and conveys a more diverse view of
authority and its exercise (Bevir, 2006).
Obviously, citizen participation and government performance are key elements
for the theory and practice of democratic governance (Neshkova & Guo, 2012).
Particularly, citizen participation advances “democratic governance” (OECD, 2001a;
Farazmand, 2004; Fung, 2015) while government performance is also “a result of
democratic processes with systems of governance and mechanisms of delegation,
control and accountability together with norms of responsibility they engender” (Lynn
& Robichau, 2013:203-204).
Citizen Participation and Government Performance through Democratic
Governance

Citizen Participation
Definition
Originated from ancient Greece and Colonial New England, and from the last
few years of the 1960s onward (Cogan & Sharpe, 1986), citizen participation has
become a popular political word and a main topic of government agendas (Pateman,
1970; Hilliard; 1999; Royo, 2011; Sidor, 2012). Nowadays, citizen participation is
considered as a core element of “good governance” (OECD, 2001a) as well as a key
value of “sound governance” (Farazmand, 2004; Ott, 2012) and “democratic
governance” (Fung, 2015).

11
 


Through different perspectives, there are various definitions of citizen
participation (Involve, 2005). From a democratic perspective, citizen participation is
usually seen as a vital aspect of democracy that “gives citizens a say in decision-making
as well as their voice can be heard; encourages civic skills and virtues; leads to rational
decisions; and increases the legitimate decisions” (Michels, 2011:279). In this sense,
citizen participation can refer to a community-based process by which public concerns,
needs, and interests are incorporated into decision making (Pateman, 1970; Holdar,
2002; AbouAssi, 2013). Drawing on fundamentally administrative and bureaucratic
perspectives, citizen participation is defined as the interaction between citizens and
administrators involving policy issues and service delivery (Callahan, 2007). This
definition differs from political participation and concept of civic engagement, in which
citizens are considered as part of the governance process and they have a direct impact
on policy formulation and implementation (Roberts, 2004). From a managerial
perspective, New Public Management advocates view citizen participation similar to
management movements in the private sector (Osborne & Hutchinson, 2004; Popovich,
1998). Citizens are customers or consumers of government service and their inputs are

crucial for delivering high performance of public service. In particular, with the
emergence of “good governance” concept, citizen participation occurs when all relevant
stakeholders cooperate to solve underlying problems (Martin, 2003); whereas “sound
governance” not only involves citizen participation but also encourages and promotes it
(Farazmand, 2004).
Some other concepts might seem similar to citizen participation. First, public
participation is often used interchangeably to citizen participation, but in some cases,
public participation not only includes citizens but also other interest groups and
organizations (Creighton, 2005). Second, some scholars generally employ “citizen
involvement” instead of “citizen participation”. According to Wang and Wart (2007),
citizen’s political participation is public involvement in expressing preferences for
important policies at national, regional and local level during the process of selecting
political representatives. Yang & Pandey (2011) define that citizen participation as
citizen involvement in administrative decision making and mangement processes.
Accordingly, citizens get involved in issuing regulations or sharing public service
delivery. Third, citizen engagement sometimes is used as the same meaning as citizen

12
 


participation. However, this term particularly implies a higher level of participation
(Gibson, 2006). Nelson & Stenberg (2018) indicates a significant change in the
terminology over this time period from citizen involvement to citizen participation to
citizen engagement. In general, these concepts can be legally interpreted the same since
they all talk about the noting of “participation” (Dudley, 2003; Yang & Callahan, 2007;
Mannarini, 2010; Ekman, 2012). Citizen participation not only indicates civic
participation in political, social and administrative activities but also citizens’ actions
and their interests in civil society, so-called community engagement. In the same vein,
Langton (1978) divided citizen participation into four categories: citizen involvement;

public activity (e.g. lobbying, civic protest…); electoral participation and obligatory
participation (e.g. paying taxes, voluntary contribution).
In the broader sense, citizen participation can be defined as the process of
providing people knowledge and opportunities to participate in political, social and
administrative activities that influence public decisions. Hence, this study adds to the
definition of citizen participation by emphasizing four dimensions; they are the civic
knowledge, opportunities for participation, quality of election and voluntary
contribution. First, recent research suggests that civic knowledge is positively associated
with citizen participation (Galston, 2007; Leigh, 2018). In other words, citizens are
more likely to participate in public affairs if they have more knowledge and information
about national issues in general and local situations in particular. Civic knowledge is
related to the content, or what citizens must know about, of the circumstance, it is the
basis upon which citizens can make “rational” decisions. Hence, the more knowledge
citizens have, the better they can understand the effects of public policies on their
interests, and the more effectively they can protect and to promote their own interests in
the political process (Galston, 2007).  Second, citizen participation also refers to the
process during which citizens possess the opportunity to participate in the public
decision-making process, the notion is in line with the deliberative democratic theory
(Parvin, 2018). Third, elections are traditionally the most important means to realize the
core values of democracy, the same token can be applied to citizen participation. High
quality of elections indicates that the process of election is transparent, thus it is
trustworthy. Hence, quality of elections is considered as an indicator to ensure quality
governance and accountability on the part of elected officials (Alemika, 2007). Finally,

13
 


citizen participation also related to social networks and voluntary organizations
(Putnam, 2000). This is a latent citizen participation in terms of “actions” such as

voluntary work to the community, and making contributions to the charity (Emorine
et.al, 2015). Local residents realize that they must have commitment to improve their
quality of life, so they actively participate in local activities through voluntary works.
Perspectives of citizen participation
Due to different perspectives on democratic and administrative theory and the
contradictions inherent in contemporary society (Roberts, 2004), there has been heated
debate about whether to adopt a participatory style of decision-making that actively
involves citizens. Supporters of greater citizen participation gave a variety of reasons
relating to promoting democracy, trust, transparency, accountability, social capital,
legitimacy, mutual understanding, fairness, justice and reducing conflict (Barber, 1984;
Box, 1998; Callahan, 2002; Fischer, 2002; Fukuyama, 1995; Innes & Booher, 2004;
King & Stivers, 1998; Schacter, 1997; Thomas, 1995). As instrumental advantages,
citizen participation positively influences citizen trust in government (Yang & Callahan,
2005; Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006), governmental legitimacy (Fung, 2006) and
governmental responsiveness (Bucek & Smith, 2000; Yang & Holzer, 2006).
Meanwhile, as developmental benefits, it contributes to a greater sense of social
integration, cohesion or solidarity (Burton, 2009). According to Smith and Ingram
(1993:1), citizen participation is “to empower, enlighten and engage citizens in the
process of self-government”. Hence, take voting as the fundamental way of citizen
participation as an example, if governments obtain higher level of citizen participation
through elections, it demonstrates that these governments are better representatives for
their respective citizens. In other words, the more citizens vote, the higher level of their
trust on governments is. Opponents of the above point of view highlight that citizens
usually lack of expertise and knowledge in dealing with complex problems, and their
motivation are rooted on their self-interest rather than the common interest (Stivers,
1990; Berman, 1997; Fischer, 1993; Thomas, 1995; Vigoda, 2002). For skepticisms,
greater citizen involvement means redefining the role of public officials in the decisionmaking process; they argued about the potential problems regarding the effectiveness
and representativeness of citizen participation (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Davies,
Blackstock, & Rauschmayer, 2005).

14